Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1333 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
reined in, without foreclosing on the need for timely responses to new policy needs); and
2. transparent and on the public record, at the time that the direction is given.
Dr Gleeson goes on to say:
Your amending legislation and the proposed office of Chief Planner will, in my view, correct a vulnerability to failure on both counts that characterises the present administrative framework for planning in the ACT.
The legislation, by making the administration of planning more robust and publicly accountable, directly addresses the public interest in this policy area and can hardly be seen as "political". No-one could object to the intention behind the proposal to establish the Chief Planner's Office ...
In short, the amending legislation will:
1. strengthen the democratic foundations of planning in the ACT by establishing a public advocate for planning, and by enhancing the Assembly's power to scrutinise planning;
2. protect the integrity of planning in the ACT by reducing the potential for ad hoc and/or venal decision making; and
3. protect the Minister's integrity by ensuring that her/his relationship with the planning administration is transparent and not clouded by private interest or secretive process.
Mr Speaker, that is the comment in relation to this legislation of one of Australia's leading planning academics. But I want to argue this legislation not just on its academic grounds and its academic merits, but on its political merits for our city.
Mr Smyth says that this legislation would apparently mean that the chief planner would be also the head of the Planning and Land Management Group. Mr Smyth clearly has not read the legislation, because the legislation indicates that the chief planner cannot be a public servant. Therefore, it is not possible for the chief planner to be the head of the Planning and Land Management Group. The legislation makes clear that its purpose is to separate what we currently call the territory planning functions from the Planning and Land Management Group. The purpose of that would be to provide for, as Dr Gleeson argues, an independent advocate available to the executive, the Assembly, the public and the planning industry on planning issues and on the need to advance, amend and enhance the Territory Plan. That is the purpose of the chief planner legislation. We do need a public advocate for planning in our city and one that has the robustness of office to argue those positions without fear or favour. We do not have that scenario at the moment.
Mr Smyth went on to say that my bill proposes that land management be separated from the planning agency. Perhaps Mr Smyth has not noticed but this government, effectively, has already done that, whilst my bill does not propose to do that in any way. Who could forget that it was the Department of Treasury that started doing planning studies on whether areas of urban open space should be developed for residential or commercial
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .